Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 11, 2000 o ) \J l~ CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER. MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100 NING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - JANUARY 11,2000 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Jay Squires on January 11, 2000, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Maynard Apel, Larry Dalien, Dean Daninger, Douglas Falk, Mark Hedin, and Jay Squires. Bev Jovanovich Community Development Director, Dave Carlberg City Planner, John Hinzman Zoning Administrator, Jeff Johnson Others Commissioners absent: Also present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES. " \ December 14, 1999 o ( "- U Motion by Apel, seconded by Dalien, the Minutes be approved as submitted. Motion carried on a 6- ayes, O-nays, l-absent vote. At this time, Steven Nash, representative of Grey Oaks, Inc., stated his client had not requested that Item 4 be placed on the agenda, and would not be presenting a Sketch Plan. He requested in light of this, that this item be removed from the agenda. Chair Squires explained that there were two items listed on the current agenda pertaining to this project, the first being a presentation by Grey Oaks Inc., and the second item being the public hearing and Sketch Plan. Mr. Nash demanded that both of these items be removed from the agenda. He reiterated that Grey Oaks had not asked for these items to be place on the agenda, and there is no Sketch Plan. He explained that they have obtained Preliminary Plat approval for the Grey Oaks project, and were working towards meeting the conditions of the plat, and fully intend to provide the final plat to the City Council. Chair Squires stated there was a special use permit for a Planned Unit Development, with certain conditions attached. Mr. Nash stated this was correct. , 0 Regular Andover Planning ~~ Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 11, 2000 Page 2 -\ , ) Chair Squires inquired if the property owner intended to comply with all of the conditions set forth in the conditional use permit. Mr. Nash stated they have been working towards this goal, and have not requested a new project. He explained that with every project, this is an ongoing process, and to date, they have met 90 percent of the conditions. He stated he did not believe at this time, it was necessary to hold a public hearing to determine whether or not they have met all of the conditions, as this was for the City Council to determine, when they presentthe final plat. Community Development Director Dave Carlberg stated as the Commission was aware, this matter is being handled as a Sketch Plan, based upon information that has been provided to the City. He explained that the City Council is initiating a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a Rezoning on this property, and these items will be before the Planning and Zoning Commission at their next meeting. He stated staff had requested the developer of Grey Oaks, Inc. to indicate in writing, the manner in which they desired to proceed with the Sketch Plan, and to do so by 4:30 p.m., that date, however, staff has not received a written response to this request. :J Mr. Carlberg advised that if Mr. Nash or the developer would care to submit a request to remove these items from the agenda, their request would be acknowledged, however, staff would request that be provided in writing. Mr. Nash presented the Commission with a letter from the property owner. Chair Squires requested a copy of the letter also be provided to interested audience members. He advised that the letter indicated that Grey Oaks, Inc. had received Preliminary Plat approval, and intended to pursue final plat approval based upon the Preliminary Plat approvaL He explained that in light of this, it was not necessary for these items to come before the Planning and Zoning Commission at this time. Motion Apel, seconded by Hedin, to remove Item 4, Presentation: Grey Oaks, and Item 5, Public Hearing: Sketch Plan, from the agenda as prepared, based upon the written request of the property owner. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent vote. Mr. Carlberg advised that a public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning of this property would be held on January 25, 2000. He explained that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment would change the land use designation from RM, Multiple Family, to RU, Urban Residential, and the zoning would be changed from M-2, Multiple Family, to R-4, Single Family Urban. He indicated that notices would be mailed for both of these applications. PUBLIC HEARING: LOT SPLIT 99-04 - SPLIT APPROXIMATELY 2.5 ACRES FROM A 5.0 ACRE LOT LOCATED AT 16200 MAKAH STREET NW BY GARY AND LANNETTE \ RESHETAR. , ) / ) '~ Regular Andover Planning ~nd Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -January 11, 2000 Page 3 , '. '- ) City Planner, John Hinzman stated the Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to approve the lot split request of Gary and Lannette Reshetar, on property located at 16200 Makah Street NW. He explained that the subject property is a five-acre parcel that borders Makah Street on the east, and 1 62nd Lane on the west. He indicated a home currently exists on the eastern side of the property, and the applicant proposes to split off the second half, which is approximately 2.5 acres in size. Mr, Hinzman reviewed the applicable ordinances and the criteria presented. He explained that Ordinance 40 regulates the division of lots, and states that a lot split is defined as any division of a lot, parcel, or tract of land, into not more than two (2) parcels, when both divided parcels meet or exceed the minimum requirements. He advised that with this provision, there is a park dedication fee of$I,100, and a $300 trail fee. Mr. Hinzman provided the Commission with pictures of the site, which indicated the proposed location of access to the home, and the surrounding properties. He explained that access to the site would be provided by 162nd Lane, and staff recommends that along with this proposal, a 120' by 120' street drainage and utility easement be dedicated to the City, at the northwest comer of the property, along 162nd Lane. He stated the purpose of this easement would be to provide for construction of a cul-de-sac turnaround in the roadway, in the event that 162nd Lane is reconstructed in the future. He noted that currently, there is not a proper turnaround distance at this location. He '\ '- ) added that the setbacks of the new home would be calculated from this 120' by 120' area. Mr. Hinzman stated the Building Official has examined the site, and has indicated that the property is generally buildable. He advised that the applicant would be required to conduct soil-boring tests, upon the issuance of a building permit. Commissioner Daninger inquired if the proposed driveway would be constructed straight off of 162nd Lane. Mr. Hinzman explained that the driveway could be constructed in this manner, however, it would have to be directed to the south, due to location of the home, which could not be constructed within the roadway easement. Commissioner Daninger stated he was concerned with regard to people driving up the applicant's driveway, and turning around in that area, He inquired if street signs might be posted to indicate that this would not be permitted, Mr. Hinzman stated this would be a possibility. Commissioner Hedin inquired if the length of the contemplated cul-de-sac would require a variance, if it were to be constructed on 162nd Lane. Mr. Hinzman indicated there is a 500-foot cul-de-sac length provision, and upon examination, it appears that the length of this cul-de-sac would exceed 500 feet. Commissioner Hedin noted that there were three lots, at least 300 feet in width. , , \. ) f'\ 0 Regular Andover Planning~~ Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 11, 2000 Page 4 '\ '- ) Mr. Hinzman indicated that the 300-foot provision is applicable in a different Zoning District. He explained that the subject property is approximately 625 feet in length from east to west, therefore, it would likely exceed the 500-foot provision. He noted that none of the dead end streets in this area have full cul-de-sacs, and this is currently considered an existing condition. He stated he did not believe a variance would be applicable in this case, although, through the construction process of a cul-de-sac, a variance may be required, however, it would not be applicable in terms of the lot split before the Commission. Commissioner Hedin advised that it would behoove the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider the result of a possible future cul-de-sac, in terms its location, and whether or not it would encroach upon the property at 16250 Makah Street. Mr. Hinzman explained that staff has reviewed this matter, and the recommendation would incorporate the City's minimum requirement for a 60-foot radius cul-de-sac. Commissioner Hedin inquired if the entire cul-de-sac would be forced upon the property located at 16250 Makah Street. Mr. Hinzman indicated the cul-de-sac would be located entirely upon the applicant's parcel. He explained that in the northwest corner of the property, there is a 120' area that would be taken off of 162nd Lane for the roadway easement. \ 'J' Commissioner Hedin inquired if the applicant would be required to build beyond the setback from the proposed cul-de-sac. He pointed out that this would place the house very far back into the lot. Mr. Hinzman explained that there would be room to the south and east of the property, and the depth of property would be at least 300 feet. Commissioner Hedin inquired regarding the possibility of extending 162nd Lane to Makah Street. Mr. Hinzman stated staff had discussed this with the Engineering Department, and has determined that the feasibility of this is very remote, as the area has already been developed, and from an access standpoint, there is really no reason for the street to go through. He explained that staff had looked at the cul-de-sac option in this case, in terms of providing a better situation than currently exists, with proper turnaround distance. Motion by Daninger, seconded by Falk to open the public hearing at 7:16 p.m. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent vote. Gary Reshetar, the applicant stated their intention was to allow their son to construct a home on the western portion of their lot. (J \ () Regular Andover Planning"ajd Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 11, 2000 Page 5 "\ / Commissioner Daninger inquired if the applicant required clarification with regard to the cul-de-sac discussion. Mr. Reshetar, the applicant's son, inquired if he would be the only property owner contributing land for the cul-de-sac. Mr. Hinzman stated this was correct. He explained that the costs associated with construction of the cul-de-sac were not being determined at this time, as part of the agreement for the lot split, and the City was strictly looking for an easement over the land to provide for a cul-de-sac in the future. Commissioner Dalien indicated that if 162nd Lane were to be reconstructed in the future, the cost of the cul-de-sac would likely be incorporated into the cost of the entire reconstruction project, and would be assessed to all property owners who would benefit. Chair Squires pointed out that the Commission was not deciding whether or not there would be a cul-de-sac at this time, but simply preserving that option in the future. Mr. Reshetar inquired if the 120' by 120' area would be sufficient for the cul-de-sac. Mr. Hinzman stated it would. He explained that the City requires a 60' radius and 120' diameter for cul-de-sacs. Mrs. Reshetar inquired regarding the length of the existing cul-de-sac. Mr. Hinzman explained that a cul-de-sac does not currently exist at this location / Bill Bush, 4613 161't Lane NW stated his concerns pertained to the cul-de-sac. He indicated that 18 years prior, a difficult situation had arisen during the resurfacing of the roads in this area, and the residents had shut down the road construction crew, and the Mayor and City Council had come out to the site. He explained that rather than this funnel type cul-de-sac, they had discussed constructing a full-bore cul-de-sac at that time, and the residents were completely opposed to this, and desired the street be left as it was originally designed. Mr. Bush indicated there were two lots located to the south of the applicant's property, which, if split, could result in another cul-de-sac on 161't Lane. He pointed out there was also the potential for this on 160th Lane. He stated there are driveways, and existing buildings on other properties in this area, and a 120-foot cul-de-sac could encroach quite extensively upon these properties. He explained that a 50-foot right-of-way currently exists between the blacktop and the subject property. He indicated that if 70 feet is taken from the other properties, in order to bring this to 120 feet to allow for a cul-de-sac, this would not be correct. Mr. Hinzman advised that the potential cul-de-sac would be located entirely upon the applicant's property, and the applicant would contribute the property for this purpose. He stated that if the property to the south requested to split, staff would likely make the same recommendation. He eXplained that the property for that cul-de-sac would be provided by that property owner, and not by any other properties along that road, as with this case. \ ,) .' \ U ~ ) Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 11, 2000 Page 6 '1 , J Mr, Bush stated he was not opposed to the construction of a house on this property, however, he would be opposed if it were to result in encroachment upon his property, Mike Vagle, 16300 Makah Street stated he was not opposed to this proposal, as long as it is consistent with the regulations. He indicated his property is located two lots north of the subject property, and there is the potential for a lot to butt up against the back of his property in the future, as welL He indicated that a few years prior, a property to the south of his had attempted a lot split, however, in order to split that 5 acre parcel, the property owner was required to have 300 feet of frontage on that road. He inquired if this frontage requirement would not also apply to the back portion of these parcels. Mr. Hinzman explained that the current proposal is an east/west split. He stated the proposal that came forward in _the past was a north/south split along Makah Street, and both homes would have faced Makah Street. He indicated that the ordinance provision states that the lot must have 300 feet of lot width at the front setback, and the previous case involved a variance request, because one of the lots did not meet the 300-foot provision. He advised that in this case, both lots meet this provision, with a 300-foot lot width on the western border, as well as on the eastern border, along Makah Street. He indicated this is a simple lot split request, with no request for variance or deviations from the City's ordinance provisions. \ \j Mr. Vagle pointed out that the property would no longer be 300 feet in width, once the land is taken to provide for the cul-de-sac. Mr. Hinzman stated this portion of the property would be a roadway easement, and in unplatted areas in the past, the City has counted this as credit towards the total lot area. Mr. Vagle inquired if the applicant's property line would run from the center of the road to the edge of the property. Mr. Hinzman stated this was correct. He explained that in unplatted areas, the property line is determined from the center of the road, and includes the area that is actually within the right-of-way, however, in platted areas, the street area is separate from the parceL Mr. Vagle reiterated he was not opposed to this proposal, as long as it is consistent. He explained that he would not want to lose the 2.5-acre parcels, because of the cul-de-sac. Steve Mickelson, 16150 Makah Street NW, stated he purchased his property 10 years ago, and at that time he had inquired regarding the possibility of splitting his parceL He stated he was informed that this would not be possible because of the frontage requirement. He stated he was opposed to this proposal, and would like to maintain the 5-acre parcels in this area. , " '_J ( ) (~ Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 11, 2000 Page 7 ~~ ,i Susan Olson, 4613 162nd Lane, inquired ifher property, located at the end of 162nd Lane, would incur any expense as a result of the lot split or the cul-de-sac. Mr. Hinzman stated there would be no costs associated with the lot split request currently before the Planning and Zoning Commission. He indicated there may be assessments for the reconstruction of 162nd Lane in the future, which would be the same for any road reconstruction project, however, there would be no expenses to the adjacent property owners associated with this lot split request. Mr. Vagle inquired if this proposal could potentially result in the extension of the streets to the west, from Makah Street, to the residents' five-acre properties. Mr. Hinzman stated he did not believe this would occur, as this proposal would provide room for a permanent cul-de-sac in this area, in the future. Mr. Vagle stated these parcels could continue to be split. He inquired if this proposal would set a precedent that would allow for smaller parcels and a street extension through this area, if the 2.5-acre parcels were permitted. " Mr. Hinzman advised that since the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in 1970, the ordinance provision in the City of Andover has been a 2.5-acre minimwnlot size requirement in the rural areas, with only a few exceptions for properties which were planned prior to this. He stated this has remained unchanged since the 1970's, and the City Council has made no indication that they desire to lower the minimwn requirement, therefore, he would anticipate that this would continue into the future. , .J Chair Squires explained that if the City were contemplating a through street in this area, they would be approaching this situation in different manner. He stated he understood Mr. Vagle's concerns, however, this proposal does not involve reserving an easement along the entire roadway. Mr. Vagle commented that the current ordinance indicates the property line for the 5-acre parcels begins at the center of the street, and evidently this is also the case with regard to the 2.5-acre parcels, therefore, the integrity of the parcels is maintained. He indicated his concern was that the 5- acre tracts could now be reduced into typical residential neighborhoods, because the door has been opened with this proposal. Mr. Hinzman advised that the zoning of this area was 2.5 acres at the time that the lots along Makah Street were developed, and that remains unchanged. There was no other public input. '_J Motion by Falk, seconded by Daninger, to close the public hearing at 7:31 p.m. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, a-nays, I-absent vote. () U Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -January 11, 2000 Page 8 '1 , ) Commissioner Dalien inquired if the 120' by 120' easement was absolutely necessary in order for this proposal to proceed. Mr. Hinzman explained that the dedication ofthe easement was a strong recommendation on the part of staff, and there is nothing in the ordinance that would prohibit the lot split from occurring without it. He pointed out that staff believes this would provide a remedy to the situation on 162nd Lane, where there is not sufficient turnaround distance. Commissioner Dalien stated the potential for a cul-de-sac on this street is a good idea. He pointed out the applicant would be required to pay a park dedication fee and a trail fee, and yet, the City would be acquiring 14,400 square feet of property from the applicant, which has some value. He inquired if there should be some consideration given to the amount of land he is dedicating for public purposes, in terns if an exchange for some of the park dedication and trail fees. Mr. Hinzman stated this was a possibility. He commented it was unusual for this type of consideration to come forward during a lot split proposal. Commissioner Dalien advised that usually, when the City obtains land outside of a platting situation, the landowner is compensated for it. Mr. Hinzman stated staff could research this matter to determine the monetary value involved, and the possibility of a trade off. \ / Commissioner Daninger inquired if there was currently any discussion pertaining to the construction ofa cul-de-sac at the end of 161" Lane. Mr. Hinzman explained that if the same situation came forward on any of the other lots along this street, staff would probably make the same recommendation, however, there is currently no proposal for this to occur on 161" Lane. He stated that the recommendation for a cul-de-sac on 162nd Land has come forward strictly because of the requested lot split. Commissioner Hedin inquired if there would be anything to prevent the two lots located to the south of the subject property from constructing driveways from the end of the street. Mr. Hinzman stated there is nothing in the ordinance to prohibit this. Commissioner Hedin stated the same problem could potentially occur on the other two streets, even if they did not split the property. He pointed out that they would not even be required to come before the City in order to construct a driveway as a back entrance to their lot. Mr. Hinzman stated this was correct, however, there was only one vacant 5-acre tract on the west side ofMakah Street, and the rest of the parcels have been developed. '. '. J' ~ U Regular Andover Planning~nd Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -January 11, 2000 Page 9 " , ) Commissioner Hedin questioned the strong recommendation for a cul-de-sac right-of-way, when there was no requirement for this for the properties on the other two streets. He explained that a vehicle could travel down anyone of those streets, and have difficulty turning around. He inquired if this should be imposed only upon this property owner, simply because the access to this property is in this location. Commissioner Apel advised that if this street were reconstructed at some point in the future, the property owner would need this area as a turnaround. Commissioner Daninger added that this was a safety consideration. He explained that there are advantages to a cul-de-sac, and the goal is mindful of future planning, to insure that a shed or monument is not constructed in this area. Mr. Hinzman stated he understood Commissioner Hedin's point, in terms of why this would be imposed upon one property owner for the benefit of all other property owners on that street. He indicated that staff could research the park dedication fee trade off that was brought forward by Commissioner Dalien, and the possibility that the fee be lowered, in exchange for the dedication of the land. Commissioner Hedin requested clarification regarding the amount of the fee. Mr. Hinzman explained that the fees for park dedication and trails would total $1,400. \ Commissioner Hedin inquired regarding the value of the land to be dedicated for the easement. \. / Commissioner Dalien stated this land would be comprised of 14,400 square feet, which is approximately the size of a residential lot. He advised that the value of a five-acre parcel would be at least $30,000, or .30 per square foot, which would translate to a value of between approximately $3,500 to $4,000 for this piece of property. Commissioner Hedin stated that if a cul-de-sac were to be constructed at some point in the future, it would present an obvious benefit to the lot located directly to the north. Chair Squires stated the owner of this lot would have property abutting the cul-de-sac, therefore, they would be assessed for the cost of constructing the cul-de-sac, as a special assessment. Mr. Hinzman stated this was correct. He explained that in the past, any property abutting a right-of- way to be improved would be assessed for the construction of the improvement. Commissioner Dalien advised that the reason for this is that there is a benefit for that property, which then has the ability to split and create an additional parceL He stated the value of the property would increase as a result of the improvement, therefore, it would be assessed. Commissioner Hedin inquired what portion of the cost would be assessed to the newly created parcel, in this case, in light of the fact that the entire cul-de-sac would be located upon this parceL / \ \. ' -- ./ /- ) Regular Andover Planning "and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -January 11, 2000 Page 10 <J , , j Commissioner Dalien advised that the cost for the construction is assessed to all of the benefiting property owners along that road, and it is typically divided equally between each individual lot. Commissioner Apel indicated there are a variety of different methods utilized to calculate the assessments. Commissioner Hedin inquired what would determine if a cul-de-sac is constructed. Mr. Hinzman explained that this would occur during a complete reconstruction ofthe road. Commissioner Hedin inquired if a street would typically last for 30 years. Mr. Hinzman stated this was correct. He pointed out that this particular road was developed in the 1970's. Commissioner Dalien stated he would recommend approval of the resolution as prepared by staff, with the exception of the first clause, pertaining to the park dedication and trail fee. He explained that the City would be taking a portion of the property owner's land for the roadway easement, and in light of this, he did not believe these fees were appropriate, therefore, he would strike the first clause from the resolution. \ / Motion by Dalien, seconded by Hedin, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution no. R -00, a resolution granting the lot split request of Gary and Lannette Reshetar on property located at 16200 Makah Street NW (Pin 18-32-24-24-0006), as amended to strike the first clause of the resolution, pertaining to park dedication and trail fees. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent vote. Mr. Hinzman stated this item would be considered at the February 1,2000 City Council meeting. PRESENTATION: GREY OAKS - 516 APARTMENT UNITS - NE ~ OF SECTION 22. PUBLIC HEARING: SKETCH PLAN - GREY OAKS. These Items were removed from the agenda at the written request of the owner of Grey Oaks, Inc. VARIANCE: (VAR 99-13) - PORCH ENCROACHMENTINTO FRONT YARD SETBACK- AUGUST MENNICKE -15504 LARCH STREET NW. Chair Squires excused himself from consideration of this item, and requested Commissioner Apel chair the meeting at this time. Zoning Administrator Jeff Johnson stated the Planning and Zoning Commission is requested to the variance request of August Mennicke, to allow for the construction of a porch that will encroach into the front yard setback on the property located at 15504 Larch Street NW \ I '- .-/ ;' ') () Regular Andover Planning 'and Zoning Commission Meeting '--../ Minutes - January 11, 2000 Page 11 , J Mr. Johnson indicated the subject property is located in the Nordeen Addition, and is zoned R-3, Single Family Suburban. He stated the parcel is slightly less than .5 acres in size. Mr. Johnson reviewed the applicable ordinances and the criteria presented. He advised that the applicant is requesting to construct a porch that will encroach five feet into the 35-foot front yard setback. The existing single family home was constructed in 1970, and also encroaches five feet into the front yard setback. Mr. Johnson provided the Commission with the site plan submitted by the applicant, which indicated that the porch would not encroach any further into the setback than the existing single family home, which is currently situated at a 30-foot setback. Mr. Johnson outlined the Commission's options for action, and indicated that staff recommends approval of the resolution. He stated the applicant, Todd Johnson, representing Trimrite Construction was present. Commissioner Falk inquired why a variance was necessary to allow for the porch to be constructed at the same setback as the exiting structure. .... / Mr. Hinzman explained that the existing structure is considered a lawfully existing, non-conforming use. He explained that anytime the structure is intensified, a variance is required. He noted that in the past, variances have been granted for other homes in the Nordeen Addition, many of which were not constructed at the proper setback. Acting Chair Apel advised that this process was specifically to make this item a matter of record. Motion by Daninger, seconded by Hedin, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. , a resolution granting the variance request of August Mennicke to Ordinance No.8, Section 6.02, which requires a thirty-five (35) foot front yard setback on the property located at 15504 Larch Street NW, legally described as Lot 7, Block 4, Nordeen Addition. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent vote. Mr. Hinzman stated this item would be considered at the February 1,2000, City Council meeting. OTHER BUSINESS. Mr. Hinzman updated the Commission regarding recent Council actions. He stated at the meeting on December 21, the Council approved the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the Rezoning, and all other related items pertaining to the Sunridge Development, which is located south of Commercial Boulevard. -) . \ U Regular Andover Planning 'ar!d Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 11, 2000 Page 12 , \ '- ./ Mr. Hinzman advised that the Council adopted an interim ordinance to establish a moratorium on cell towers, and this one-year moratorium was established to allow for the review of the City's Antenna Ordinance. He stated the purpose of this review is to create some provisions for future extension of cell tower services, in terms of the number of locations within the City, and to set some regulations for better placement ofthese facilities. Mr. Hinzman stated at the Council meeting on January 4, there was denial of the variance request by Sue Rooker for the residential identification sign at 14191 Prairie Road. He advised that the Council directed the Planning and Zoning Commission to review the sign provision of the Zoning Ordinance, to determine if any changes were necessary for residential facilities, and this item would be coming before the Commission at their next meeting, on January 25. He noted there was also approval ofthe lot split and variance request on Ward Lake Drive, and approval of the final plat for Woodland Estates 2nd Addition. Mr. Hinzman stated the Planning and Zoning Commission interviews would be held on February 10, 2000, at 6:00 p.m., and staff would be mailing notices in this regard. Mr. Hinzman stated at the next meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, there would be consideration of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning for the Grey Oaks development, as well as discussion of the City's Zoning Ordinance. - / There was no other business to come before the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Apel, seconded by Falk, to adjourn. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent vote. The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Trish Pearson, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. ') " j